HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment Card CC - 03/19/2018 - Tim Becker, ZM18-01, opposedHOME OF'7NF: 5faJF LiFf-Ita cvFC+F,+;Ln'
PSTn.it L1511 ET.) 20106
PUBLIC CO ENT CARD (Please print & fill in complete
Instructions:
1. Complete this card in its entirety (DO NOT leave anything blank)
2. Give the card to the City Clerk BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING BEGINS.
3. When your name is called, approach the podium and speak directly into the microphone and state your name and address.
Please complete the following information:
ouId like to make a General Comment that does NOT pertain to an Agenda Item or Zoning Case. (skip to Toda.v's Date)
I would like to speak about an Agenda Item or Zoning Case. "*(Please indicate Agenda Item No. below) **
Agenda Item No. :
Zoning Case No.: Z / " ` — ` /V
TODAY'S DATE: �—
NAME:
l
) L � L, v -,,,l
PHONE:
Please check ALL that apply:
I J am in SUPPORT of this Agenda Item
1am in OPPOSITION of this Agenda Item
1 am a Milton resident
1 am a Milton business owner
I am a local lobbyist duly registered with the State Ethics Commission
I am a paid representative of either the support or opposition
I am affiliated with a Group or Neighborhood*** Name of GrouplNeighborhood ***(complete attached form)
**You are required to fill out the attached Affidavit before speaking on behalf of the group you are representing.
4wantto*
speak about this Agenda Item
i I DO NOT want to speak but I would like the following comments read into the record:
(Please use the back of this card for additional writing space.)
**Please read the following RULES regarding Public Comment:
• Public Comment is allowed on an Agenda Item or a General Public Comment can be made about something that is not
on the Agenda.
• NO Public Comment is allowed regarding Consent Agenda Items or First Presentation Items.
• All General Public Comments are allowed a total of five minutes.
• ALL Public Comments in SUPPORT of an Agenda Item are allowed a TOTAL of ten minutes. This means that ALL
people who wish to speak in SUPPORT have a total of ten minutes as a group.
• ALL Public Comments in OPPOSITION of an Agenda Item are allowed a TOTAL of ten minutes. This means that ALL
people who wish to speak in OPPOSITION have a total of ten minutes as a group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have made any campaigricontributions to a Councilmember aggregating $250.00 or more, please
check "ves" or "no" : ❑Yes 17 No.
When you have completed this card, please give it to the CITY CLERK before the meeting begins.
Please see the CITY CLERK if you have any questions regarding this Public Comment Card.
Sudie Gordon
\% 4
From:
Steven Krokoff
Sent:
Monday, March 19, 2018 2:37 PM
To:
Sudie Gordon
Subject:
FW: Please Deny Request for Variances for Birmingham Crossroads
Steven Krokoff
City Manager
2006 Heritage Walk, Milton, GA 30004
678-242-2571 (0) 1678-242-2577 (F)
www.cityofmilton a.us
wC.yF OF
M I LTCB I
iSIA6115111:1 10,
You�
Want to stay on top of what's going on in the City?
Sign up for our e -Newsletter!
Have a problem, question, comment, complaint or compliment?
We want to hear about it! For prompt assistance, call 678.242.2500 or e-mail us at info@cityofmiltoncia.us.
From: Tim Becker [mailto:tabeckerl@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 1:03 PM
To: Laura Bentley<laura.bentley@cityofmiltonga.us>; Peyton Jamison<peyton.jamison@cityofmiltonga.us>; Burt
Hewitt <Burt.Hewitt@cityofmiltonga.us>; Joe Lockwood <Joe.Lockwood @cityofmiltonga. us>; Joe Longoria
<Joe. Longoria @cityofmiltonga.us>; Rick Mohrig<Rick.Mohrig@cityofmiltonga.us>; Matt Kunz
<Matt.Kunz@cityofmiltonga.us>
Cc: kjarrard@jarrard-davis.com; Steven Krokoff <Steven.Krokoff@cityofmiltonga.us>; Kathleen Field
<Kathleen.Field @cityofmiltonga.us>
Subject: Please Deny Request for Variances for Birmingham Crossroads
City Council:
(I am blind -copying a number of citizens on this email, some of whom will be attending and speaking tonight.)
I am writing to urge you to vote against the variance (to eliminate the buffer) being sought for Birmingham
Crossroads. I have spent considerable time studying this issue. I believe that tonight's vote is a key test of
whether Council truly understands the results of the 2017 elections (or whether we are back to business as
usual in Milton).
This variance request is a relatively simple matter. Once again (as with the recent Cambridge, Ebenezer, and
multiple Hopewell rezonings), a developer is coming to Council asking that the rules be broken so he can
increase his profits. Once again, a developer is asking for more density than he is allowed under existing
zoning laws. Once again, a developer has not done his due diligence before buying a property and now is
coming to Council to fix his mistakes. This is a zero sum game. The developer increases his profits and
citizens pay the cost in terms of increased traffic, more crowded schools and amenities, and lowered
property values. It is crony "capitalism": concentrated benefits for special interests that get socialized across
Milton's hapless citizens.
The developer is arguing that both Fulton County and Milton approved site plans that do not include the 75 -
foot buffer between the north and south parcels, that approval of the site plans was tacit approval of the
proposed variance, and that subject variance request is a mere formality. This argument is laughable. The
developer conveniently does not mention that a condition of approval for the previous rezonings was that all
applicable zoning laws must be followed. Furthermore, our zoning Laws state that rezoning site plans are
subject to modification to bring them into conformance with our zoning laws. That is, our zoning laws
supersede rezoning site plans. (The American Planning Association supports this contention; see below
discussion.)
My understanding is that the developer submitted a new "improved" site plan on Friday afternoon. Council,
as you know, late submission of documentation is an often -used (and dishonest) tactic of developers. We
saw it most recently with the Hamby Road sewer extension. We saw it with the Ebenezer Road and Hopewell
rezonings. Submitting a plan (or other documentation) at the last minute is unfair to our staff, but, more
importantly, it is unfair to citizens. It is an abuse of our process. A zoning hearing is a quasi-judicial
proceeding, meaning that it follows "courtlike" protocols. A fundamental legal protocol is
discovery. Submission of a plan so late that citizens do not have a reasonable opportunity to analyze the plan
denies citizens due process. It is unconstitutional according to both the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions. The
developer has owned this land for 2 years. He has had plenty of time to submit a compliant plan well in
advance of this proceeding. Furthermore, the developer has threatened that he will cram 33 townhouses on
this property if his variance is not approved. Denying citizens the opportunity to review a developer's site
plan is reason enough to deny this request for a variance. Threats from a developer are reason enough to
deny this request. These actions demonstrate that the developer is not acting in good faith. Dishonest
tactics and veiled threats should not be rewarded by this Council.
I would also remind Council that staff has recommended denial. I would assume that staff is confident that
they would prevail in any lawsuit filed by the developer, who has threatened that he will sue if not granted a
variance. I assume that case law is on our side.
I would also remind Council about the purpose and process for variances. According to the American
Planning Association (APA), variances are meant for minor discrepancies, such as "a house will be one foot
too close to a lot Fine or a few feet too tall ... or a commercial business has one or two parking spaces fewer
than the zoning ordinance allows." In this case, the developer is not addressing a minor discrepancy; the
developer is essentially requesting a major deviation from our zoning laws—laws that he should have
consulted before buying the subject properties. Furthermore, the applicant is required 1) to show "undue
hardship", (2) the hardship is "caused by the size and shape or the property or some other factor that the
applicant (or his or her predecessor) did not cause, (3) approving the variance "would not create significant
negative impacts on the surrounding area." In this case, the developer does not remotely satisfy even one of
the three criteria. The APA states "buying a property without knowledge of zoning restrictions is also not
'undue hardship' because that could have been prevented by the applicant's checking the zoning before the
purchase," So the developer's lack of due diligence is not considered a hardship and at the CZIM the
developer did not claim any other hardship. The APPA further states that "while consistency with the
2
adopted plans is sometimes a criterion for variance approval, often it is not." This means that zoning laws
generally supersede site plans. So it is clear to me that the developer is abusing our variance process. It is
clear that there is no hardship, just incompetence. And it is clear that our zoning laws, not the rezoning site
plan, govern this matter.
I have often heard Council cite local control and preferences as critical to its decision-making. For example,
local control was the main reason cited for abandoning the roads in Crooked Creek. It is clear that citizens
that live near the Crossroads want denial of this variance request. Some will speak tonight. Many years ago,
the Birmingham Hopewell Alliance worked hard to ensure that a master plan was approved by all parties
that would ensure the Crossroads was developed to a high standard. I hope that tonight you will respect and
honor the work of the BHA and deny this request.
So given that this developer cannot make a decent case for approval of this variance, why did he nevertheless
apply for a variance? The reason is that Milton has a long history of granting developers whatever they want,
only to leave citizens holding the bag. The result has been a steady stream of ridiculous requests from
developers that has kept Council preoccupied priorities of developers rather than the priorities of
citizens. Fortunately, we recently had an election that (once again) clarified the desires of citizens. The 2017
election confirmed citizens' sentiments as expressed in multiple city surveys, citizen petitions, and the
overwhelming passage of the greenspace bond. Citizens have been very clear that we want our zoning laws
upheld. That is not too much to ask. In fact, upholding our zoning laws is your duty and obligation as our
elected representatives. Please deny this variance request.
Thank you for considering my perspectives. Please feel free to call me to discuss.
Respectfully,
Tim Becker
404.401.2653